This guy gives me hope for the future of true Christianity

[unico]

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by unico

I'm avaliable.



Wanna move to Vermont?

[unico]

let's go!!!

as long as you won't be offended by my posters of Jay Bakker and Bono adorning every inch of wallspace.

that guy is really really great. is he traveling and giving talks? i'd love to meet him or hear him speak.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by unico
let's go!!!

as long as you won't be offended by my posters of Jay Bakker and Bono adorning every inch of wallspace.

that guy is really really great. is he traveling and giving talks? i'd love to meet him or hear him speak.

He is. He's mainly in NYC right now though because his wife is in medical school at NYU. He, *erm* actually spoke in Virginia in April...

[Vincent Vega]

Is here anyone with a huge pack of tissues?

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Is here anyone with a huge pack of tissues?

Mia lost the love of her life....or the love of her last 3 hours if you prefer.


She'll live.

[unico]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

come back, Jay, come back! Virginia NEEDS you.


oooh...do you know who his agent is? I booked events last year. Maybe...

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by unico
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

come back, Jay, come back! Virginia NEEDS you.

He won't be able to stay away from you forever...


Hey, y'know since we ARE planning a visit to NYC for the next tour, we should probably stay through Sunday and take a visit to Brooklyn....



http://www.revolutionnyc.com/speaking.htm

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by yolland

The Constitution can be amended, yes, but it would be wrong to say that the presumptions about human beings underpinning it are based on reason alone. Can you prove empirically that we possess inalienable human rights?

No, that is impossible to do. However in terms of consensuality as self aware creatures a rational nontheistic construction of rights and liberties may be formed in the absence of some sort of universal law.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, that is impossible to do. However in terms of consensuality as self aware creatures a rational nontheistic construction of rights and liberties may be formed in the absence of some sort of universal law.

i agree, and it would remain rooted in the tangible and real and human, thus possessing the possibility of it being wrong.

also, as a bit of an aside, i think we can assuredly see that the assumption of inalienable human rights and the democracy that flows from it is as culturally relative as anything else. if Iraq has taught us nothing it's that democracy doesn't seem to be the natural state of human beings.

[A_Wanderer]

The tyranny of democracy would be the countepoint, I would take liberty over democracy.

[Irvine511]

anarchy?

[A_Wanderer]

Despotism.

[AEON]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Despotism.

Are you saying you prefer this?

[AEON]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
However in terms of consensuality as self aware creatures a rational nontheistic construction of rights and liberties may be formed in the absence of some sort of universal law.

How would you have self aware creatures arrive at a consensus?

[the iron horse]

Originally posted by Irvine511




are all points of view equally supported by logic, fact, and reason?

or do we give all opinions equal weight regardless of how little they might employ logic, fact, and reason?

Irvine511,

That's up to you. I'm just saying it's a good idea to give all points of view on an issue a good read and study.

For me, it breaks down to what you decide will be the final authority.

Your personal opinion or the source of your faith.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you saying you prefer this?

I am saying that democracy can lead to bad ends, and that liberty can be achieved without it, not that I support despotism.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by AEON


How would you have self aware creatures arrive at a consensus?

We do it all the time, we abide by the law, pay taxes with the expecation that we are not going to have crimes commited against us and that we enjoy the benefits of government.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by the iron horse
Irvine511,

That's up to you. I'm just saying it's a good idea to give all points of view on an issue a good read and study.

For me, it breaks down to what you decide will be the final authority.

Your personal opinion or the source of your faith.

You don't think he's had to deal with the Bible quite a bit?

Any Bible argument here will most likely involve, for the most part, people who have heard it before.

And the most debatable Biblical opinions are the ones based on misinterpretations.

[yolland]

Originally posted by AEON
How would you have self aware creatures arrive at a consensus?

In practice that is, in fact, what the framers of the Constitution did. They may have seen the Declaration's appeal to the "self-evident truths" of divinely endowed inalienable rights to life, liberty and "pursuit of happiness" as a necessary starting point. (Keep in mind, even back in England it was less than a century since the 'Glorious Revolution' resolved the political implications of that "truth" once and for all; while for the colonies, it was as if this had never happened, so the significance of declaring "self-evident" what it enabled was likely quite fresh in their minds.) But nothing much about the form of the resulting polity follows from that rather vague and lofty-sounding principle; to account for that, you'd need to look to the framers' key intellectual influences--the English Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the Dutch Republic, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, and assorted other works on republicanism (including some of their own). That is, they engaged in rational debate over ideas drawn from existing enshrined customs of their own cultural milieu--more often ones born from bloody power struggles between monarchs and parliaments, merchants and aristocrats, established churches and religious minorities than from any alleged revelations of "universal law" acquired through "pure" reason or faith.